On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 23:26:00 -0500, Herb Chong wrote: > i rarely use Royal Gold 100, but i have 3 frames that i scanned from some i > took this summer and i can't see anything like what you show. i also rarely > shoot any ISO 400 film, but the closest i saw to what you show is from my > roll of Elite Chrome 400. even then, it wasn't as noticeable. i assume no > sharpening was applied?
Well, I just checked the scans from slide film again (Elite Chrome 200), and the same artifacts are definitely there. They're also not as bad as on some negative films. Portra 400 NC does better than the Royal Gold Series. Oddly enough, Gold Max 400 seems to scan better than Portra 400 NC, too. I haven't scanned much Fuji yet, but I will be soon. The images I posted were raw. What I did was: 1) Scan at 4,000 dpi and 42 bpp with the Canon FS4000 driver (1.03?) over TWAIN. All in-scanner and in-driver processing was disabled. 2) Photoshop received the data and converted it to a 16 bpp image. 3) I used Photoshop to convert down to 8 bpp. 4) I drew in the red box on the image. 5) I saved as PNG. 6) I extracted the area in the red box and saved it as PNG. 7) I resampled the image to 400 pixels on the long edge and saved as PNG. Maybe I just a bum scanner with a ton of sensor noise? --------------------------- First Example: Full Res 11.5 MB http://www.nutdriver.org/PlM01-08-06.png Disp Res 440 kB http://www.nutdriver.org/PlM01-08-06-display.png Extract 470 kB http://www.nutdriver.org/PlM01-08-06-detail.png Second Example: Full Res 15.5 MB http://www.nutdriver.org/WMi02-10-19.png Disp Res 615 kB http://www.nutdriver.org/WMi02-10-19-display.png Extract 450 kB http://www.nutdriver.org/WMi02-10-19-detail.png Third Example: Full Res 15.7 MB http://www.nutdriver.org/WMi02-15-16.png Disp Res 610 kB http://www.nutdriver.org/WMi02-15-16-display.png Extract 140 kB http://www.nutdriver.org/WMi02-15-16-detail.png TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
